China produces the same emissions in 18 days as Australia does in one year

Oh the futility. Australia’s entire annual production of carbon from all that mining, construction, industry and everything is replicated in China every 18 days.

If we cut our emissions by an obscene, bleeding 25%, we will spend billions and yet China will undo all our hair-shirt “savings” in just 5 normal days. (And that’s at current rates, it gets worse by 2030).

We can also compare total Australian emissions with total Chinese emissions:

….

For the number nerds – -the log graph:

…

..

For China the key pledge is a 60% cut to the 2005 CO2 emission intensity (CO2 emissions per unit of GDP).

The table below shows the relationship of GDP to CO2 emissions. The estimates used to calculate the 2030 emissions are based on 4% annual GDP growth and a pledged CO2 intensity of 0.96 CO2 in tonnes C-equiv per $10,000 of GDP.

Population 2012 (million)

GDP per capita 2013 (World Bank)

CO2 emissions per capita in tonnes C 2012 (CDIAC)

CO2 Intensity: CO2 per GDP in tonnes C per $10,000 GDP

USA

317

$54,629

4.5

0.82

China

1351

$14,520

2.0

1.31

REFERENCES

[i] The Edgar analysis agrees with the CDIAC results for 2012 and 2013/

China produces products and that sell so it makes trillions and then builds real infrastructure around the world esp in Africa, also building “One belt, One road” and high speed rail across Asia to Europe and other places. I hope its CO2 emissions feed all the plants so we can grow more food to feed the world.

China entered the markets and the tech/manufacturing boom late, and most likely because the leaders finally realized they’d wrung all they could from the agricultural revolution. In order to present a modern, war-capable and affluent face to the rest of the world they began developing, and have stepped up the pace to such an extent they might just implode. In the meantime there is no intention, zip, zero, even nada, of slowing down until goals are met. We don’t know when that will be, or what the goals are.

CO2 from China is the least of my worries, and should be the least of anyone’s worries, no matter where it’s from. There -are- pollutants that China is dumping into the air and land that will have rather interesting results in the (maybe near) future – and the air particulates spread everywhere, so I am concerned about just what exactly is in that mix as it will drift and fall slowly to earth on the winds and rains.

China is not taking a hint from the more disastrous moments in the western industrial revolution. I don’t think even a brick-bat to the head would make a dent in the lack of clue being shown.

And in the meantime the industrialized revolutionized “modern” world is being asked to step back in time to a darker, colder, hungrier place, one which may lack the creature comforts we have gotten used to, like running water, sewers that haul the crap away, garbage collection, fresh foods in off-season, and decent housing. Maybe even store-bought clothes.

Of course, if China does not implode (or explode) we could all be wearing comfy PJ-style outfits and dancing with the cranes at dawn some day.

This pretty much summarises the extent of the madness and destructive nature of the Greens and supporting global warming alarmists. As all intelligent and thinking people know, even if Australia decided to shut down all mining exports, industries and power stations (which of course would lead to the destruction of our nation) the net effect on climate change would be zero as China keeps going. So why even bother wasting billions of our own money which would otherwise be used to build infrastructure, such as more schools, hospitals, etc. and save lives? China must be laughing at as and thinking we a fools. Of course they are right.

When we get an article by Jo that starts quoting statistics, I’m a bit inclined to get all suspicious about the validity and accuracy of those quoted statistics.

Statistics are like a bikini;
When the body corporate is in good shape they like a bikini can look very attractive and attracting.
When the body corporate is in lousy shape the bikini of statistics can look very bad when fitted to that body.

In both cases some statistics like a bikini, are careful to hide and disguise and mask the more vulnerable and somewhat less attractive parts of the body corporate from the public’s interested view.

So most if not all politicals near the top of the tree use the bikini statistics effect to supposedly provide a very open view of their patch in a nation’s economy.

The Bikini effect is then used by those same politicals to hide and disguise and cover up all those bits of statistics which the public will not find to their liking or very attractive.

The CDIAC as listed and linked by Jo above is one of the major centers for CO2 emissions data.

Going to the link to the CDIAC and then to their listed Historical Global Estimates link and one finds that the CDIAC Global historic fossil fuel CO2 emmissions “estimates” [ ?? ] now go back to 1751.

And on that 1751 estimate of CO2 emissions somebody / somewhere no doubt of a climate science trougher’s persuasion will then produce a paper no doubt to be lauded in the MSM somewhere, showing how mankind has increased his CO2 emissions to a catastrophic level since 1751.

That paper/s is probably out there somewhere already amongst the tens of thousands of climate alarmist papers published each year but it is likely to be of such a dubious quality as to be completely ignored.

Now if you read some of these claimed CO2 emissions data claims almost invariably you will see or find out later that those CO2 emissions are ESTIMATES or have been ESTIMATED through the use of MODELS and Modeling of Emissions based on very dubious statistics that are the statistical norm in around 140 to 150 of the global nations out of the approximate 190 or so nations on this planet.
——————-
To quote from the “Trends in Global CO2 Emissions; 2015 Report” as linked by Jo in [1] above.

quoted;

CO2 emission —estimates —have been made by PBL and the JRC on the basis of energy consumption data for the period 1970-2012 published by the International Energy Agency (IEA), and for the period 2013-2014 published by British Petroleum,[edit; both mostly estimated ] except for coal consumption in China over the 2012–2013 period, for which data published by the National Bureau of Statistics of China were used.

The —estimations —are also based on production data for cement, lime, ammonia and steel, as well as on [ edit; "guessed at" ] emissions per country, from 1970 to 2012, from the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) version 4.3, which was developed jointly by the JRC and PBL.

Nearly every one of the statistics data on CO2 emissions if not directly —estimated— is derived from —estimates— of something or another that is supposedly responsible for CO2 emissions in some way.
—————–
On Chinese statistics on which this current post of Jo’s is based.

The production of every sector of an economy is used to derive a nation’s GDP and its progress and growth or its economic decline.

China’s GDP has been growing at the rate of 6.9% per year for some years now.

Or has it?
And if it hasn’t then China’s CO2 emissions are likely to be far less than the modeled estimates from the various CO2 mostly alarmist dominated official CO2 emissions estimating organisations.

Below; Something that I have read on re Chinese statistics a couple of years ago but this time from 2016.

this story serves to underscore the breadth of President Xi’s corruption crackdown. But the detention is an ironic development considering Beijing’s notoriety for falsifying official numbers, and it comes amidst debates about the validity of China’s official statistics. The Wall Street Journal reports on a Chinese economist who believes the country’s real rate of GDP growth might be closer to 4.3 percent–5.2 percent than to the officially given rate of 6.9 percent:

Given weaker industrial output in China and more than three years of industrial deflation, a 6% expansion for manufacturing in 2015 is questionable “no matter how the number is counted,” said [Xu Dianqing], who added that he believes it’s more probable that industry and construction grew at most by 2% last year and perhaps not at all.

That translates into economic growth that tops out at 5.2% last year and perhaps something in the 4s, assuming the official agriculture and service sector growth figures are correct, he said.
Mr. Xu said it’s unlikely that the service sector– sometimes cited as an explanation for growth rate discrepancies – did better than reported by authorities.
Xu is not alone; economists have long assumed that China’s growth numbers are unreliable. In a 2007 cable, later leaked, Premier Li Keqiang (who was then a governor) confirmed that the GDP numbers are edited by party officials.
So, for the most part, everyone just assumes that the numbers are at least somewhat off, even when the economy is doing well. But during the present slowdown, the official statistics have come under heightened scrutiny.

This is, potentially, a very big deal. Because while a few percentage points’ inaccuracy in one year might not seem all that significant, over the course of many years—perhaps even pushing into decades—the real numbers and the official numbers would start seriously to diverge. If China has been systematically overestimating its GDP growth for many years, its economy could be much smaller than people assume.
No one knows what China’s actual growth numbers are, or by how much they might be off, or for how long they’ve been misreported. But the inflation of important numbers is a contributor to the global China bubble that we’ve been covering.

[ more >> ]

If China’s GDP growth statistics base has been seriously corrupted and a very considerable level of overestimation of GDP growth has been made then China’s CO2 emissions data which is a low key statistic in China in any case, is most likely to be very significantly incorrect and just plain straight out wrong.

And THAT of course throws every bit of the MODELLED and ESTIMATED, never measured despite what most of the public and MSM believe in the sanctity of the published CO2 emission numbers, global CO2 emission statistics would be out into the wild blue yonder of a plain straight out pure guesswork and nothing more, of the total annual global tonnages of Anthropogenic CO2 emmissions compared to natural CO2 emmissions.

Particularly so when mankind’s conntribution to annual global CO2 turnover tonnages is —estimated — to amount to less than 5% of the total annual emmissions of CO2 from all sources, both anthropogenic and natural.

Now have I mentioned a rapidly industrialising India and its 1.35 billion inhabitants ?

The emissions are not, according to the historic science, what causes warming but only the stuff that gets into the atmosphere and causes or contributes to the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. However inaccurate the guess at our annual CO2 emissions is it still seems the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 (about 2ppm at present) is around 50% of our annual emissions. Then of course if natural warming is occurring the oceans would be providing most if not all of the increase in annual atmospheric concentration of CO2 without any help from us.

The reason our scientifically illiterate politicians, like Julie Bishop, boast about the Paris accord ,as she did in parliament today, is to make us all feel guilty for being filthy fossil fuel users. She and other ignoramuses have learnt this sliming technique from the human hating Greens who insist one billion humans is all the Earth can sustain over the longer term. Even they can see that windmills and solar cells are incapable of providing energy to a world population of 7.5 billion soon to be 9 billion.

Some quick calculations then. People combust food into CO2. 0.04% CO2 in and up to 24% CO2 out.
So humans produce 500 litres of CO2 output per day.
This means 25mole of CO2 or 24x44g or 1kg of CO2 per day and a whopping 365 kg per year, some more than others. 1/3 of a ton,
Australia’s breathing produces 8 megatons of CO2 per year and let’s not talk about the 100 million animals who produce even more, even the kangaroos
to the koalas to the termites.

Consider than at 0.3tons of CO2 per person per year just breathing, China’s population breathe out a whopping 390 megatons per year, three times
as much as our country.

I also need to point out that as China’s population has increased 1 Billion in the 20th century, like India, the total output
if of new CO2 which was not in the Bern diagram in 1900. This increase of 5 billion new humans on the planet
since even 1960 means 5,000×0.3Megatons or 1700 megatons of new CO2 per year, 10x the entire Australian output from new humans breathing.
So if people just breathed more slowly by 10%, we would be irrelevant.

That is why South Australia has no electrical power. They are allowing the Chinese and Indians to breathe more easily on a planet which would be
ever so slightly warmer, if CO2 actually changed the temperature which it does not.
Not terribly smart but very generous. South Australia is a special place. Like Tasmania.

GeeAye, Right back at you I’m using the most important measure — the percent growth rate per annum. I’m not cherry picking “metrics” as you imply, but you may be. Good luck finding any measure that shows our growth is small apart from the “absolute number” one.

Australia has the fastest population growth of major developed countries, and projections show a reduced infrastructure spend per capita, putting huge pressure on major cities.

“Since the 2000 Olympics the population of Australia has grown by 25 per cent. In fact, since the Sydney Olympics, Australia’s population has grown more than the entire population of Sydney at that time,” Australia Institute Executive Director, Richard Denniss said.

Australia is growing at 1.6%
NZ 1%
UK 0.6%
USA 0.8%
Canada 1.1%
Japan and Germany were both shrinking in the 2013 report.

This is long term growth, year after year. Since 1990 the Australian population has grown by 40%. This is mostly due to immigration not births.

Per capita, by a long way, we have one of the largest immigration intakes of any modern developed nation.

was not implying that our growth was small but population growth as a percentage can be misleading misleading. If a family visits my house and the population doubles (at the rate of 200%/hour). I don’t worry or panic about it as I have the resources to cope with that. So yes, rate is a simple and objective number but the meaning attributed to it is not. Different jurisdictions have different economies/evironments/ landscapes (ie the physical amount of space actually present)/social tolerances that vary in their ability to cope with different numbers of people.

The data you provided in your reply is completely true but I didn’t see how you were linking that information with the rest of what you wrote. To me this along with what followed it is a non-sequitur;

Australia is a giant coal and iron quarry built at the far end of the Earth, with a tiny, but rapidly growing population spread across a vast land.

One might also question why you think our population is “tiny”. That, along with “rapidly growing” is subjective and is not defined by you either by scale or by context.

Are you sure? Your statement still provided no criteria for the use of “tiny” other than comparing it to some other place and context.

I’d say that 24 million is tiny in Australia compared with a few thousand in Nauru. Nauru is full for its land and resources. Nauru could stack more people into its available land (think Hong Kong) but it would be a hideously difficult and expensive exercise to provide for them all.

” I didn’t see how you were linking that information with the rest of what you wrote.”

GeeAye, my point is that it’s very hard for us to get 26-28% emissions reductions compared to other developed nations because it’s an absolute measure not a per capita measure and our population is growing faster everyone else. What we are offering to do is a major cut, with major pain, yet it is so pointless. I might add that point to the post. Thanks for the feedback.

Tiny? — means we make very little difference to global emissions. Is 1.4% of 3%, not tiny?

Cool. that is clearer. Some might argue (and I don’t particularly) that we have a lot of fat to cut from our per person emissions which offsets the difficulty with coping with growth.

The last paragraph is interesting.

A thing can be divided in whatever way you like and you can excise some small part. You can say that the small part has no significance so you can leave it out. You can make that same argument for all the rest of the thing and eventually claim that the thing does not exist.

A family in the US can say, “why should I change as I contribute 0.001% of the US’s emissions; cutting my emissions will make no difference”. In this way the US’s emissions can be rendered insignificant and no one needs to do anything as we’ve (you’ve) logicked the problem out of existence.

Vietnam with over 90 million population is now getting considerable investment in industry and production that is now bypassing China due to the Vietnamese having quite a lot cheaper labor and a well educated young workforce to man industrial design and production lines.

China would probably invest in Vietnam as well but a certain Sino- Vietnamese border war of 1979 plus the current South China Seas armed imbroglio with the Chinese being the aggressors isn’t doing anything at all for Chinese-Vietnamese relationships at any level.

Importantly the cheaper labor in Africa and South America is only one side of the coin, on the other China sees the emergence of a new middle class and consumption on those continents. The hallmark of capitalism.

This is for you”sillyfilly:
“We (UN IPCC) redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy …”
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore …”

This is a direct quote from Dr Ottmar Endenhofer, IPCC, co-chair of Working Group 3, dated November 13, 2010.

The leaders of the countries that signed up for this “Scam” are beggaring western nations to enrich themselves. As to why? Back when Goldman Sachs set up the Chicago Climate Exchange, they (GS) estimated the carbon credit trading market at USD $3,000,000,000,000 per annum. This market doesn’t rely on primary production or manufacturing. There is no product, just worthless bits of paper. 3 Trillion dollars for hot air. There is no demonstrable benefit to the environment – just dodgy models, junk ‘science’ and a vastly reduced standard of living for anyone who isn’t a part of the scam. It is theft on a truly staggering scale.

Edenhofer did try and backpedal from these statements. He was preaching to the faithful at the time, and got carried away with his own importance. Oops.

Here’s a great emissions stat: Australia will be able to produce the steel for its 50 billion dollars worth of submarines in ONE day. And I want to be in Whyalla on that day. Christopher Pyne and Craig Emerson can sing together: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1pEt7bgY2U.

Of course, a Socialiste/Fraternite Musulmane French government in twenty or thirty years time might decide there’ll be no submarine parts for us skippies, so Whyalla’s glorious day may have to be put forward or cancelled…but then we save a whole day’s emissions. Win-win!

31 Aug: TheCollegeFix: Professors tell students: Drop class if you dispute man-made climate change
by Kate Hardiman – University of Notre Dame
Three professors co-teaching an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open for debate, and those who think otherwise have no place in their course.
“The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,” states the email, a copy of which was provided to The College Fix by a student in the course.
Signed by the course’s professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill, it was sent after several students expressed concern for their success in the course after watching the first online lecture about the impacts of climate change…READ ALL PLUS COMMENTShttp://www.thecollegefix.com/post/28825/

A small bunch of harpies from what presumably is a third rare university seeking to shut down all debate on a highly sensitive and important subject. Is it any surprise the leaders of the bloated Global Warming Industry are increasingly dismissed as misleading, intolerant, bigots and not achieving the pop star status they so desperately yearn?

The trouble with leftist academics is they secretly admire the censorship of totalitarian states, rather than the tolerance and open debate which should be encouraged by all western universities.

The more I think about, the more I want to take that class just to annoy the believers. Waste of money, waste of time, maybe, but the lovely satisfaction of poking their little bubbles every time class met would be cathartic. And I would be proud of failing that class.

31 Aug: SMH: Peter Hannam: Climate Change Authority’s key report ‘neglects to join the dots’, critic says
The Climate Change Authority has backed off its commitment to assess the full implications of the Paris climate accord in its latest report, a move critics say departs from the study’s original terms of reference.
The authority, now dominated by appointments made by the Turnbull government, on Wednesday released its third report of a special review into the climate policies Australia should take after the climate summit in France in late 2015..
“They have neglected to join the dots on the carbon budget, and have neglected the full implications of the Paris agreement,” John Connor, chief executive of The Climate Institute, said…
***In an unprecedented move, two of the authority’s 10 members – climate scientist David Karoly and public ethics professor Clive Hamilton – plan to release a dissent report within days to highlight their disagreements with the final study…
The five-year terms of the three holdovers from the Gillard-government era – Professors Karoly and Hamilton, and University of Queensland economics professor John Quiggin – expire in July 2017.http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-authoritys-key-report-neglects-to-join-the-dots-critic-says-20160830-gr52kc.html

is the following a substitute for the much-touted ratification of the Paris Agreement?
piece ends with last year’s IMF imagined subsidy figures, so doubt there’s anything to this story:

31 Aug: SouthChinaMorningPost: Li Jing: China, US set to release review of each other’s fossil fuel subsidies in historic move at G20 summit
The cross-checking system between world’s two worst carbon polluters will be the first time Beijing has allowed another nation to review its domestic energy subsidies
China and the United States – the world’s two largest economies and worst carbon polluters – are expected to make public a cross-checking of each other’s fossil fuel subsidies at the G20 summit in Hangzhou this weekend, people familiar with the matter say…
While the real impact may be small, it signifies that China will, on a limited basis, allow the US to influence its domestic energy subsidies, in a major gesture to the US and the world that China is taking climate change seriously…
On Tuesday, insurers with US$1.2 trillion under management called on G20 leaders to set a timetable to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels by 2020, calling climate change “the mother of all risks” to business and society…http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2011376/china-us-expected-release-peer-reviews-each-others

Windorah….Anna Bligh; this woman’s got like the political ‘kiss-of-death’ touch when it comes to choosing projects to praise and defend.

Remember Brisbane, and the effect on the Wivenhoe dam when she wrapped her scrawny arms around the old ‘Save water at any cost’ routine? Seems as though the weather was just not listening to dear old Anna.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soi2.shtml Check the raw data (click on ‘show table’ at top) for SOI both 1974 flood and 2011 flood were above the line on the graph
Dec 2010, Jan 2011 were 27 & 23
Jan 1974 was 20.8
SOI is predictive of wet/dry seasons, there is time to act and with a forecast wet season, an earth dam should be protected from overspill before the wet, NOT during the wet
During the 2010/11 flood we had 6 times the Dec average for Queensland, 92 rivers in flood, 2 floods for Emerald and Rockhampton and floods all around Brisbane
Wivenhoe in 1983 saved Brisbane from a huge flood before it was completed, 8 metres in the city, 1974 was about 5 meters and 2011 was about 4.5 metres in the city

We know from observed history that Wivenhoe can fill quickly so action must be taken early, it wasn’t and Brisbane was in danger of massive flooding from overspill and dam failure
When ⅓ of Wivenhoe was emptied in the night with NO WARNING, it was like a breach in the dam that damaged 60 km of riverbank and caused $5 billion damage
The BOM radar showed the catchment was filling with rainfall never before seen, it was lines and lines of storms and the Government was warned on Jan 5 of 2 fronts off Brisbane, they did nothing. When Wanda parked off Brisbane, we got flooded. This pattern has occurred throughout history when Brisbane got flooded

So check me if I’m wrong.
That means that the CO2 reductions our country spent $24 billion dollars to achieve, were replaced by China the first week we began the tax.
Even if you thought Carbon tax a good idea-
Instead of an extra half-billion dollar hospital in every State, an abolished surgical waiting list, billions of dollars off the National Debt, and billions of dollars left in the Taxpayer’s own pockets- it was made futile in its first week of operation?

As our politics loose any shade of grey and evolve towards the binary, We keep finding new ways to prove that progressives/greens and the rest of us are possibly different species. Yes, we have evolved in parallel, and interbreed, perhaps as neanderthals and homo sapiens in prehistoric times.

The difference that may be the death of our democratic experiments, however, is that one group seems to learn from experience while the other doubles down on failure.

Is there any government/environmental program, anywhere, that is troubled, where the left does not assert that the only issue is lack of “investment”?

This “investment” has apparently led to financial stress in the Australian government. It is the same in the US, where we hide the truth by including government growth in GDP. Our economy has been, outside of government spending, shrinking per capita for a decade.

Every farmer, rancher, small business person, and practical adult who has ever run their affairs from a cash drawer can see the problem and knows the solution.

I won’t further characterize the group that doesn’t.

But like a small business, that must finally close it’s doors when the outflows swamp the resources, so must a government.

I am therefore Not amused by quibbling over statistics if there is agreement as to trend. And I find it rare that supression of opinion is done for the purpose of hiding success.

Ignorance of fiscal reality is the second binary.

A need to asserts one’s superiority and claim a mantle to run the lives of others is the first.

It is hard to see how this ends well; though one may hope that one of the early failures is so ghastly that the world reacts in horror and much is reformed.

I hope that when the first frog expires the rest of us will still have the energy to jump.

The best way to really hurt the Greens and Lefties is to do everything in your power to minimise the amount of tax you pay, because they are all – directly or indirectly – supported by taxation.

Ditto for the entire political class.

There was some drivel spouted the other day by some or other professional parasite (was it Morrison? Some career party apparatchik, anyhow) about people who pay no tax.

I wholly endorse that view so long as the definitions were right.

Anyone who is a net recipient of taxation (i.e., who receives more in government-produced goods and services than they pay in taxation) should be disqualified from voting. I refer to these people as NTR (Net Tax Recipients).

People who pay more in taxes than they receive in .gov-furnished goods and services are NTP (Net Tax Payers).

They should be the only voices who get a say in how their money is spent, because every net cent that is spent must originate from their productivity (and to the extent that .gov can’t stay within its budget, debt must be paid down by future NTP).

So every politician and every bureaucrat (including all the Little Eichmanns at the ABS and the ATO) would be ruled out. Every post-tax cent of income they receive is paid out of the taxes of an NTP private-sector worker.

Ditto – right off the bat – every cop, public-sector teachers, doctors and nurses. Also most nominally-private doctors, nurses and administrators (because they get massive grants from government). All recipients of industry subsidies, too.

The voter rolls would shrink by about 70%, because that’s the share of the population who fit the ‘NTP’ category.

Caveat: I am against democracy for a few reasons, encapsulated by the following three points:

(1) you can’t aggregate individual preferences to pretend that you know ‘what society wants’ (that’s the Arrow Impossibility Theorem);
(2) politics always attracts vermin and there’s no way to avoid it (it’s the Bayes-Nash equilibrium, in Game Theory terms);
(3) there are prohibitive cognitive shortcomings in the bottom 95% of adults (even among NTPs the average level of numeracy is so low that their ability to properly evaluate policy proposals is not worth assessing). The source for that last dismal gem is the PIAAC surveys of adult competencies.

Been saying this for years. I am in the USA, Oregon. Our democrat governor is big on climate initiatives as well. But Oregon only contributes 0.6% of the annual output of CO2 of the USA.
Hell, if we all died and blew away we couldn’t have any affect on USA output, let alone global.

The discussion on the futility of CO2 futility of countries like Australia presupposes that CO2 causes global warming and climate change and that a 2 degree increase would be bad anyway. The case for inaction on CO 2 is more compelling than just futility. How any intelligent constituency can sabotage their future in this way will in fifty years time be reviewed by historians of a period of global insanity.

Yes China produces as much CO2 in 18 days as Australia does in a year but let’s not forget now that China is a “have not country ” .
Does a country with over 300 $$ billionaires sound like it needs hand outs ?
The West are such idiots . As extreme green Democrats work on shutting down the energy sector in the USA and elsewhere
there will be a race to the bottom on wages and the country with the biggest slave wage population wins .
But at least China has said they will reduce their emissions after 2030 or when they have bankrupt the west economies, which ever comes first .
Why are labour leaders silent ? Why do union members keep paying dues to people that are silent about protecting the membership interests ?
How much money did it take ?